Dec 20, 16 / Cap 19, 00 19:56 UTC

Re: Writing a valid Constitution : Step 2  

May be scincecracy ? When scintists solve how better for country...

Dec 20, 16 / Cap 19, 00 20:10 UTC

I think a Scientocracy is definitely a step in the right direction. But unfortunately scientist don't always agree with one another. So I think we must look to a Democratic Technocracy where the politicians are experts in their field of government.

Dec 20, 16 / Cap 19, 00 22:06 UTC

I am thinking something on the line of Meritocracy. Someone who worked hard to reach the top deserves the role of leadership.

Dec 20, 16 / Cap 19, 00 22:35 UTC

It is a very tricky and also very important question... As we know experts are not always best managers... on the other hand we have to make sure that people responsible for things know enough of them to be effective enough. Forms like meritocracy does not guarantee governance to best interest of all (the society) - that would be true if all people are selfless and care only for the common good - we have enough examples from history this is not the case.

Dec 20, 16 / Cap 19, 00 23:04 UTC

Well, you have a point there about meritocracy.

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 01:12 UTC


Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 01:43 UTC

We should also consider democracy though... just saying.

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 23:30 UTC

That crap from facebook just reflects earthly nonsense!

we need circles which are interconnected with each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

individual power and will shared with each other, decisions made via bordcomp links of each related to issue, concerns or ideas should be have just colorlevels to adress, all such things like scientists or politicans should stay grounded because of their BS and "govermental Love contribution" shall be law first of all, before logistics and resourcefullness...

All such .....crazy forms are just that.

Dec 21, 16 / Cap 20, 00 23:50 UTC

I would hope for a democracy but somewhat upgraded with aspects from the other.

-to be a politican you need to meet certain requirements, so you actually know what you are doing.

-instead of a voting age, I suggest a voting license. You need to pass a course in how the political system works, political history and other relevant information, so you actually know what you are voting for. Test to keep this license should be requierd atleast every 10 years.

-experts of relevant fields should be invited to take part in decision making

-an archive of decisions including video of debate should be open for all Asgardians, exception can be considerd if the subject somehow risks the safety of Asgardia

Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 01:45 UTC

I think what you @Rikard.Korpklo said is good, with the exception of your last point, transparency is something that should be rooted in governement, and almost anything else. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. But sure there might be some extreme situations where keeping silent would be for the best, but I believe we should still be told, just not with all details, something along the lines "This video contains sensitive information about the safety of Asgardia, and as such cannot be displayed to public view". Anyway, having the need to hide things, means you don't really trust the people, and that's not what we're going for in Asgardia, not the way I see it atleast.

Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 02:05 UTC


I basically agree. What I put that in for is security plans or similar, which would be a mistake to put in the network.

Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 04:27 UTC

I strongly suggest a combination of technocracy and democracy. One alone cannot suffice.

If we choose only Democracy, we will end up having popular politicians who are shrewd but unintelligent like the ones we have on Earth.

If we only choose Technocracy, general people's opinions run the risk of being neglected.

In my view, candidates MUST be technocrats or specialists, and people will chose among them.

That way, only health specialists can get elected as health minister. And law specialist can get elected as law minister.


Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 12:11 UTC

I agree with Rikard.Korpklo and Plainswalker, but quick note here: When you say democracy, you mean choosing officials, not chosing laws. I consider this distinction important because even though the word democracy has been the victim of an orwellian nightmare for the last two hundred years, we are talking about designing a new government from scratch and things should be crystal clear. I do not mean I am in favor or against a system in which citizens directly vote laws and political meassures, I just mean we should make clear the distinction when what we mean is citizens voting representatives, who in turn vote laws and meassures. Currently there is not a single democratic country on Earth, in part because it is technologically impossible to have millions of people communicate horizontally in a fast manner and decide what to do about a particular matter.

For the case of Asgardia, I think we could put the power of both extremes at work (the purely democratic, horizontal one and the purely technocratic, oligarchic version of government. "One alone cannot suffice", as monirzaman said.

This is, imagine we choose a representative among a pool of specialists to deal with a problem or a set of problems that fall within their area of expertise. Even if we have all non-elected specialists vote, or only specialists voted a person for such position, in the end we would have one person dealing with the thinking, and that is limited. We would be depriving Asgardia of the ideas and judgement of all other specialists.

On another hand, if we had everyone decide what to do about our afformentioned set of problems, or who to entrust with dealing with it, we would be letting the choice rest upon plenty of people who actually have no clue what they are working with. It is then when masses choose actions and representatives based on fallible criteria such as looks, fears, etc. And they choose wrong.

So instead, we could have all experts in a particular problem comprise relatively small assemblies to vote meassures horizontally. That way we would take advantage of all and the best of the available judgement. Non-experts could be allowed to talk in a particular assembly if they thought their testimony could be of any use.

  Last edited by:  Alvar Alonso Lavin (Asgardian)  on Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 12:39 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 14:29 UTC

I also think it should be a democracy with a government form of experts in each scientific, legal, etc... fields

Dec 22, 16 / Cap 21, 00 22:33 UTC

I'm thinking about a combination of Technocracy and Holacracy*. I think that a real and complete Technocracy will be difficult because experts from diffrent domain cannot see thing objectively. So, maybe adding an Holacracy based on the Technocracy method, will allow 'leaders' to have differents point of view from people related to the scientific domain. And, for me, this systeme could be the best gouvernment for a country like Asgardia (based on sciences and people)

This is only my idea and can be inappropriate to the vision of our country.

  • : Holacracy is a form of Democracy based on collective intelligence. Where people are divided on multiple "teams" which are "independant" and can takes minor decisions. Major decisions are taken from decisions of theses "teams". This form of gouvernment allow everybody to participate. Transparancy, Knowledge of everyone and can motivate people to take par of decisions.